When a Jew who does not identify as an anti-Zionist writes a piece on Comment is Free, on any topic, they attract comments challenging them to denounce Israel. This is the test that many leftist Jews have experienced. What's your position on Israel? Jews are not acceptable in some sections of the left and the labour movement until they have answered this question to the satisfaction of the anti-Zionists.

The Natfhe conference tried to apply this test to Israeli scholars as a condition of being accepted as part of the academic community. LabourStart was denounced by Sue Blackwell as not being a genuine part of the labour movement because it contained Zionists. Yvonne Ridley, speaking for Respect, could not have been more explicit when she said, "[Respect] is a Zionist-free party... if there was any Zionism in the Respect party they would be hunted down and kicked out."

When Jonathan Freedland, a critic of Blair, a critic of the American war against the Saddam regime, a critic of Sharon and Olmert, writes a post, for example on Lord Levy, his piece is peppered with antisemitic abuse by Cif commenters. When Nick Cohen writes on any topic, his piece is littered by comments such as this:

"I've noticed you avoid commenting on international issues when the situation presents difficulties for your point of view. Well, Cohen, will you condemn Israel, or are you completely morally bankrupt?"

When Norman Geras writes on cricket he is denounced for not having written about Israeli brutality (Cif has rightly deleted the worst of them).

And whenever Maureen Lipman writes, she is denounced as a racist. When she writes a piece about buying a white dress, someone responds, "Given her views I'm suprised she didn't have a spare brown shirt to put on." When she writes about dogs, someone responds, "Maureen's 'conscience' is concerned about dogs, but is perfectly clear when it comes to those of the 'wrong' race." When she writes about showbiz, someone comments "It's amazing that all the chaos, suffering and violence in the Middle East seems to have gone unnoticed by Maureen."

Lipman is accused of having made a racist comment, but there was nothing racist, or genuinely ambiguous about what she said. It was only ambiguous if you wanted to read it as evidence that this "Zionist" is a racist.

She was having a discussion on TV with Michael Portillo, Diane Abbott and Andrew Neil at the time of the beginning of the Israeli raids against Hezballah in Lebanon. Portillo was talking about the fact that Hizbullah and Hamas are jihadi Islamist organizations of the same kind that were responsible for suicide bombing around the world. Abbott then raised the question of proportionality, arguing that the Israeli response to the attack on its soldiers and the abduction of two of them could be seen as being disproportional.

Maureen Lipman replied, "What's proportion got to do with it, though, Diane? It's not about proportion, is it? I mean human life is not cheap to the Israelis, and human life on the other side is quite cheap..."

It is clear from the context of the discussion that by "the other side" Lipman meant Hizbullah, Hamas, and the other jihadi Islamist organizations.

Caabu noticed that this "racism" went unchallenged by the presenter. It also went unchallenged by Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo. As everyone knows, Diane Abbott knows nothing about racism and is a shrinking violet when it comes to challenging it. But in reality, none of the three in the studio challenged this "racism" because they understood that it was not a racist comment.

Lipman went on to clarify what she meant: "... and human life on the other side is quite cheap because they strap bombs to people and send them to blow themselves up". Not a shred of ambiguity left then. She was arguing that Israelis value life more than those who "strap bombs to people and send them to blow themselves up" - that is, the jihadi Islamist organizations. It is they who send out suicide bombers, not Arabs, Palestinians, Lebanese or Muslims in general.

I am not interested, here, whether Lipman is right or wrong to claim that Israelis value human life more than jihadi Islamists. What is clear, however, is that while one may agree or disagree, it is a willful misreading to claim that it is a racist comment.

Zionism is not a form of racism or of Nazism or of apartheid. Those who insist on the truth of the identity statement "Zionism = Nazism = racism = apartheid" license people to relate to Jews who do not identify themselves as anti-Zionists as racists, Nazis, or defenders of apartheid. To relate to Jews in this way is dangerous. The danger is that it will lead to the emergence of an antisemitic movement.